The Nation as a Community Born of War? Symbolic Strategies and Popular Reception of Public Statues in Late Nineteenth-Century Western European Capitals

Abstract

The genesis and development of Western European nationalism is widely connected to the notion of the nation as emerged from war. This paper focuses on that cultural combination in terms of the symbols and programmatic rhetoric employed in commemorative rituals surrounding public statues—mainly in honour of military personnel—in late nineteenth-century Paris, London and Berlin. As the experience of a total war lay still ahead, the national heroes elevated on plinths besides existing war memorials were not intended to express personal mourning or to manage bereavement. They were erected as morally charged expressions of specific national ideals. Based on a sample of some twenty public statues in Paris, London and Berlin, this paper identifies three strategies of intentional manipulation: compensating for military defeat by alternative interpretive patterns in France, overwriting the competing claims of different conceptions of nationhood in Prussia-Germany, and legitimising the nation-state on an imperial scale in Britain. Comparison of these three cases substantiates the claim that there were three ‘special paths’ for legitimising the nation through war, each dependent on historical contingencies (such as the trauma of defeat or experiences of victory). In all three cases, however, the experience of war served as a means of justifying national claims to power while omitting all reference to the inner make-up of each nation. At the same time, adequate historical assessment of metropolitan public statuary requires that public reception as well as official symbolism and rhetoric be taken into account. Responses to the statues indicate that the widespread popular appeal of national war myths was far from automatically achieved. Instead of fostering cohesion, the reception of cult figures occasionally came up against political controversies that served as factors limiting national propaganda.

Résumé: Les nationalismes européens sont connecté aux notions de nations au sortir de la guerre. Cet article se penche sur cette combinaison culturelle en termes symboliques et rhétoriques en traitant des rituels entourant la statuaire commémorative à Londres, Paris et Berlin. Dans la période antérieure à la guerre totale, les héros nationaux de la statuaire ne représentaient pas une façon de gérer le deuil mais représentaient des idéaux nationaux. Sur la base de vingt statues cet article identifie trois stratégies manifestes: la compensation de la défaite en France, une interprétation hégémonique de la nation en Prusse-Allemagne, et la légitimation de la nation impériale en Grande-Bretagne. La comparaison démontre les trios destinés spécifiques de la nation en guerre et leur contingence historique. Dans ces trois cas, cependant, l'expérience de la guerre justifiait les désirs de puissance nationale tout en omettant les références explicites à la composition de la nation. En même temps, une analyse comparée de l'accueil fait à cette statuaire indique que le public ne les recevait pas sans controverses politiques limitant l'efficience de la propagande nationaliste.

Notes

  [1] For a rough outline of these two strands of argument in what has become a vast field of research, see the paragraphs to follow. A much more detailed discussion of the state of international research on French, German and British national symbols in general, on monuments in particular and on the invention of national memory is given in Rausch, Kultfigur, 18–51. For an analysis of nineteenth-century American statues see Savage, Standing Soldiers, Kneeling Slaves. The concept of ‘collective memory’ has been criticised for a variety of plausible reasons, see Bourke, “Introduction”. It tends, in fact, to apply forms of remembrance and recollection specific to individuals and groups to whole societies without methodological rigour.—I am very much indebted to Heidi Eberhardt Bate for her most substantial support. I also wish to thank the two anonymous referees for very valuable comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

  [2] Smith, Nationalism, 140.

  [3] Becker, Bilder; Jeismann, Das Vaterland der Feinde.

  [4] Colley, Britons; Colley, “The reach of the state”, 165–84; Robbins, “An imperial polity”, 244–54; Summers, “Militarism in Britain”, 104–23; Summers, “Edwardian militarism”, 236–56.

  [5] Girardet, Le nationalisme français, 13–15.

  [6] , Nations, 8–11 and 130; idem, “Introduction: Inventing traditions”, 1.

  [7] Anderson, Imagined Communities, 7.

  [8] Halbwachs, Les cadres sociaux de la mémoire; Hutton, History as an Art of Memory, 73–90.

  [9] Nora, Les lieux de mémoire.

 [10] For a critical dicussion of the “Lieux de mémoire” see among others Valensi, “Histoire nationale”, and Englund, “The Ghost of Nation Past”, especially 302.

 [11] The following overview of current research is based on a vast and growing literature that defies even selective presentation.

 [12] Matsuda, The Memory of the Modern; Carter et al. , eds, Space and Place; Driver and Gilbert, eds., Imperial Cities; Gerson, “Town, Nation or Humanity”; Whelan, Reinventing Modern Dublin; Isnenghi, ed., I luoghi della memoria.

 [13] Established iconographic patterns suggested that only monarchs or persons of dynastic origin were privileged enough to be honoured with equestrian statues; contemporary enthusiasm for public commemoration did, in fact, increase eligibility to be memorialised with a statue or a bust. Most public statues followed common formal criteria while also showing minor individual variations. Representatives of military nations often made a distinct feature of military attributes such as uniforms and weapons.

 [14] See for instance Corbin, and Tartakowsky, eds, Les usages politiques des fêtes.

 [15] On opposition cultures and disputes on national connotations in nineteenth-century France see Gildea, The Past, see here esp. 9–12.

 [16] The crucial question of how public monuments in Europe were perceived by different social, political, gender, religious or age groups in the nineteenth century (congruent with or at odds with official rhetoric) is as yet unanswered. In fact, research is faced with a certain aporia here because it must be based on empirical evidence unavailable if sources are lacking. The problem is briefly addressed by Jourdan, Les monuments de la Révolution, 29.

 [17] Horne, “War and conflict”.

 [18] Schivelbusch, Die Kultur der Niederlage, 123–224.

 [19] Wehler, Deutsche Gesellschaftsgeschichte, 301–31.

 [20] Feuchtwanger, Democracy and Empire.

 [21] For the Franco-German War in general see Becker, and Audoin-Rouzeau, La France; Roth, La guerre; Taithe, Defeated Flesh.

 [22] For the following, see Le Temps, 14 August 1883, 3; Le Radical, 14 August 1883, 1/2. See also Chamouard, “Un après-midi d'été 1883”, 157–65.

 [23] Le Temps, 14 August 1883, 3; Lavalle, “Le monument”, 133–41. The allegorical group was commissioned from Louis-Ernest Barrias.

 [24] Le Temps and Le Radical as above.

 [25] Le Temps.

 [26] See George and Mollier, La plus longue des Républiques.

 [27] See Le Temps and Le Radical and Chamouard, “La guerre de 1870–1”, 95–120.

 [28] Forest alluded to the fact that from the winter of 1869–1870 onwards, Bismarck had supported the Spanish proposal that the Habsburg Prince Leopold should succeed to the Spanish throne. On the one hand, the Reichskanzler was speculating on the integrative effect of such a rise in power for a Catholic prince supported by the German South on the still shattered national identity of the German population. On the other hand, however, Bismarck clearly wished to provoke Napoleonic France with an inflammatory diplomacy and thus deliberately ran the risk of war with France. See Nipperdey, Deutsche Geschichte, 55–75.

 [29] Nipperdey, Deutsche Geschichte, 58. Napoleon III also disliked seeing the growth of Prussian strength and the resultant shift in the European balance of power and even counted on having the anti-Prussian German South on his side.

 [30] See again Becker, and Audoin-Rouzeau, La France; Roth, La guerre; Taithe, Defeated Flesh.

 [31] Le Temps, 14 August 1883, 3: “Paris n'a été vaincu que par la famine”.

 [32] Le Radical, 10 August 1884, 1; 14 August 1883, 1–2.

 [33] Le Temps, 14 August 1883, 3.

 [34] Le Constitutionnel, 15 August 1883, 1.

 [35] Le Constitutionnel, 15 August 1883, 1

 [36] Rougerie, Paris insurgé, 112–17; George and Mollier, La plus longue des Républiques, 57–64; Tombs, The Paris Commune.

 [37] Kolb, “Kriegsniederlage und Revolution”, 135–53.

 [38] George and Mollier, La plus longue des Républiques.

 [39] Roth, La guerre de 1870, 686–87.

 [40] Le Temps, 19 November 1889, 2–3.

 [41] Le Temps, 19 November 1889, 2–3

 [42] Le Temps, 4 November 1893, 2–3.

 [43] Le Temps, 4 November 1893, 2–3

 [44] For illustrations both of the statue and of Raffet's painting, see Hargrove, Les Statues de Paris, 149. To call for national unity in this effort, the other side of the plinth showed a combination of the ‘coq gaulois’ allegory, the republican pike and the imperial eagle.

 [45] Le Temps, 26 October 1895, 2–3. In addition to the Raffet statue by Émmanuel Frémiet, the de Neuville and Antonin Mercié's Meissonnier monuments made the figures of the painters themselves (standing in the case of Neuville, sitting in the case of Meissonier) the dominant feature but combined a sabre with a palette on the plinth in order to stress the military dimension of national figures.

 [46] Mayeur, Les débuts, 167–71.

 [47] Le Radical, 17 July 1888, 2, estimated the number of participants at 30,000.The statue was sculpted by Auguste Paris.

 [48] Le Temps, 15 July 1888, 1. See also de Tournefort, Au Sergent Bobillot.

 [49] Le Radical, 16 July 1891, 2.

 [50] From the 1880s onwards, wreaths were placed in front of the statue on 14 July to the accompaniment of the Marseillaise. For contemporary reports on these rites, see, for example, Le Temps, 17 July 1882, 2. From the mid-1880s onwards, the right wing ‘Ligue des Patriotes’ became prominent in the festivities; see, for example, Le Petit Journal, 16 July 1885, 2.

 [51] For another ‘hommage spontanée’ of Bobillot at the rue Antony, Faubourg du Temple, see Le Petit Journal, 16 July 1886, 2.

 [52] See also Extraits du régistre des délibérations du Conseil Municipal de Saint-Etienne, 15 April 1874. Archives Nationales de Paris [AN] F^1c I 170 Dossier: 30 décembre 1896–5 may 1897. Erection d'un monument à Francis Garnier.

 [53] See Letter of the Ministre de la Marine et des Colonies to the Minister of the Interior, 11 May 1874, AN F^1c I 170 Dossier: 30 décembre 1896–5 may 1897. Erection d'un monument à Francis Garnier

 [54] Valette, “L'expédition de Francis Garnier”, 189–220.

 [55] Mollier and Georges, La plus longue des Républiques, 227–43.

 [56] Le Temps, 15/16 July 1898, 1–2; Becker and Audoin-Rouzeau, La France, 160–63; Andrew and Kanya-Forstner, “The French ‘Colonial party’”, 99–128.

 [57] If the racist overtones often connected to the celebration of colonial military ‘heroes’ were largely absent in this period (with the exception of the British case: see the section on statues in London below), this is not to say that French discourse on this subject was completely free from such preconceptions. It did, in fact, become much more prevalent during the First World War.

 [58] See, for instance, Wassermann, Die Enthüllung des Sieges-Denkmals and many others. An extremely detailed account may be found in Alings, Die Berliner Siegessäule.

 [59] For a contemporary inventory, see Kuntzemüller, Die Denkmäler Wilhelms des Großen, and Abshoff, Deutschlands Ruhm und Stolz. On monarchical monuments in Germany after 1871, see Alings, Monument und Nation, 80–8, 108–09.

 [60] The monument most closely connected with the notion of the new nation-state emerged from war was the equestrian statue for the Prussian King Frederik William III unveiled on 16 June 1871 near the city castle and Berlin Dome at the eastern end of Linden Avenue; see (among others) Neue Preußische Kreuz-Zeitung [NPKZ], 16 June 1871, 1; Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung [NAZ], 18 June 1871, 1. A ‘via triumphalis’ illustrating phases of the German campaign of 1870–1871 lead through the Brandenburg Gate to the end of Linden Avenue and the monarch's monument.

 [61] See for instance NPKZ, 22 June 1871, 5; Germania, 18 June 1871, 3.

 [62] See Das National-Denkmal . The other festivities are covered in great detail in the Vossische Zeitung [VZ], 18 March 1897, 5; 21 March, 1–2; 22 March 1897, 1–2; 23 March, 1–2. For the plans of the projected monument by Reinhold Begas, see Nicolai, “Das Nationaldenkmal”, 115–23.

 [63] See William II's interpretation of his father's monument in the “Armee-Verordnungsblatt”, quoted in VZ, 22 March 1897, 1.

 [64] NPKZ, 22 March 1897, 1.

 [65] NAZ, 21 March 1897, 1.

 [66] Liberal papers did not take up this point: see VZ, 21 March 1897, 1; VZ, 23 March 1897, 3; National-Zeitung [NZ], 22 March 1897, 2.

 [67] See, for instance, the left wing journal Die Hilfe 3, no. 12 (21 March) 1897, 4–5.

 [68] Die Hilfe 3, no. 12 (1897), 3–4.

 [69] The numerous local war memorials in Berlin after 1871 were mainly initiated by individual quarters of the city. Archival documents relating to these projects seem to have survived only rarely. For a survey based on secondary literature and early guides to Berlin, see Weinland, Kriegerdenkmäler.

 [70] See for the following NPKZ, 2 November 1880, 1; Deutscher Reichs-Anzeiger, 1 November 1880, Landesarchiv Berlin [LAB] A Rep. 000-02-01 Nr. 1634, 46, Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, 1 November 1880, 1.

 [71] See the festive programme of William I: Gouvernements-Befehl vom 30. Oktober 1880, Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin [GStA PK] I. HA Rep. 89 Nr. 20836, 78; Programm, wie es nach dem Befehle Seiner Majestät des Kaisers und Königs bei der Enthüllung des Graf Wrangel-Denkmals am 1. November 1880 gehalten werden soll, GStA PK I. HA Rep. 89 Nr. 20836, 79.

 [72] NPKZ, 2 November 1880, 1

 [73] See, among others, Langewiesche, “Staatsbildung”, 49–67.

 [74] NPKZ, 2 November 1880, 1.

 [75] See also Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, 1 November 1880, 1; VZ, 2 November 1880, 2–3; 2 November 1880, 1; NZ, 1 November 1880, 2–3.

 [76] NPKZ, 24 October 1904, 1–2; VZ, 24 October 1904, 4–5; NZ, 24 October 1904, 3.

 [77] See, among others, NZ, 24 October 1904, 3.

 [78] See above.

 [79] For a description of Albert Wolff's monument for Frederick William III, see the numerous articles given above.

 [80] As both the Roon and the Moltke figures were meant to round off a territory dominated by memorials to the Emperor, they were rather modestly decorated. As part of Hitler's excessive plans to convert Berlin into the capital of national socialism, in 1938 both statues were transferred to the ‘Großer Stern’ in Berlin, where—together with the Bismarck memorial and the Siegessäule—they can still be seen today.

 [81] For a history of the Reichstag edifice, see Cullen, Der deutsche Reichstag.

 [82] NPKZ, 24 October 1904, 1–2; similarly NZ, 24 October 1904, 3.

 [83] Frevert, Die kasernierte Nation, 194–207; Wehler, Deutsche Gesellschaftsgeschichte, 253–64.

 [84] E. H. Bailey's statue of Nelson was placed on top of the column without public ceremony in November of 1843, but the monument was not fully complete until 1867. See Pall Mall Gazette, 21 October 1902, Public Record Office, London [PRO] Work 20/118; The Times, 25 September 1843, 4; 26 October 1843, 6; 6 November 1843, 5; 14 August 1858, 9; 1 February 1867, 7. See also Yarrington, The Commemoration, 277–325.

 [85] A first monument for the Duke was erected at the south-eastern side of Hyde Park Corner in 1822. See The Times, 10 July 1822, 3. Cf. Busco, “The ‘Achilles’ in Hyde Park”, 920–24. It was followed by an equestrian statue at the Royal Exchange in 1844 (see A Minute Book of the Committee ). In September of 1846, another equestrian statue of the Duke was placed on top of the triumphal arch at Hyde Park Corner, see The Daily News, 30 September 1846, 3, The Examiner, 3 October 1846, 9; The Standard, 29 September 1846, 3, 30 September 1846, 3, 1 October 1846, 2; The Times, 1 October 1846, 8. See also Physick, Wellington Monument, 1–19.

 [86] Rausch, Kultfigur, 208–22.

 [87] Colley, Britons, 322.

 [88] Parry, The Rise and Fall, 65–71.

 [89] Strachan, “Militär”, 78–93, especially 81.

 [90] Bayly, Indian Society, 169–99. Among the monuments referred to above were statues for Sir Charles James Napier (1856), for Major General Sir Henry Havelock (1861), for Sir Colin Campbell, Baron Clyde, and for Sir James Outram (1871). The standing figures were usually shown in full military uniform and high boots, resting on or carrying a sword. For a closer analysis see Rausch, Kultfigur und Nation, 222–28.

 [91] The Times, 6 June 1888, 12. The statue was the work of sculptor Thomas Brock.

 [92] Robinson and Gallagher, Africa and the Victorians, 63; Pearce and Stewart, British Political History, 155.

 [93] Newbury, “Great Britain”, 624–50, here 629; Saunders and Smith, “Southern Africa”, 597–623, here 604 and 614; Robinson, Gallagher, Africa and the Victorians, 1–26.

 [94] The Times, 6 June 1888, 12.

 [95] The Standard, 6 June 1888, 5.

 [96] The Standard, 6 June 1888, 5.

 [97] Ibid.

 [98] Hoppen, The Mid-Victorian Generation, 632–35; Saunders and Smith, “Southern Africa”, 607.

 [99] The Standard, 6 June 1888, 5. See for instance Blanch: “British Society and the War”, 210–38.

[100] Daily Telegraph, 17 October 1888, 3; Evening Standard, 16 October 1888, 1; Morning Post, 17 October 1888, 7; The Standard, 17 October 1888, 2.

[101] See ibid. and MacKenzie, Heroic Myths of Empire, 125–30; Johnson, “The death of Gordon”, 285–310.

[102] Daily Telegraph, 17 October 1888, 3.

[103] Robinson and Gallagher, Africa and the Victorians, 145, 151–54; Johnson, “The death of Gordon”.

[104] Daily Telegraph, 17 October 1888, 3.

[105] Daily Telegraph, 17 October 1888, 3

[106] The statue was removed in 1943, but later found a new home on the southern part of the Embankment where it was reinstalled in 1953. See Blackwood, London's Immortals, 269.

[107] The statue was removed in 1943, but later found a new home on the southern part of the Embankment where it was reinstalled in 1953. See Blackwood, London's Immortals, 269

[108] Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper, 21 October 1888, 6; The Times, 17 October 1888, 10; The Standard, ibid., 4–5; see also Kennion, Courage, 5–7.

[109] Daily Telegraph, 20 June 1895, 4; Evening Standard, 19 June 1895, 4; Morning Post, 20 June 1895, 2. A sign of contemporary disenchantment with monuments of Empire, the statue was removed in the early 1930s in connection with traffic works and is now in Hampshire; see Blackwood, London's Immortals, 94 and 349.

[110] Morning Post, 20 June 1895, 2.

[111] Daily Telegraph, 19 June 1895, 6.

[112] Daily Telegraph, 17 June 1907, 11; Manchester Guardian, 17 June 1907 6; The Times, 17 June 1907, 8; The Standard, 17 June 1907, 9.

[113] Cannadine, “The Context, Performance and Meaning of Ritual”.

[114] See above.

[115] Anderson, “The Growth of Christian Militarism”.

[116] The comparison of national monuments has often been asserted but only rarely carried out. For the claim, see Agulhon, “La statuomanie”, 154; Haupt and Tacke, “Die Kultur des Nationalen”, 266. For two-country comparisons see Tacke, Denkmal im sozialen Raum. An analysis of national allegories with comparative elements is given by Gall, Germania. War memorials are compared by Koselleck, Zur politischen Ikonologie; for a three-country comparison of outdoor statuary in a metropolitan context, see Rausch, Kultfigur und Nation. Part of the difficulty of a comparative approach is the very different development of national historiography on the subject from country to country.

[117] For the traditional typologies, see Meinecke, Weltbürgertum und Nationalstaat, 5–8; also Kohn, Die Idee des Nationalismus, 17, 25, 195, 222, 309–12, 434–35.

[118] For a critical perspective on traditional typologies, see also Koshar, From Monuments to Traces, 290, 294 and among others Schulze, Staat und Nation, 126.

[119] , Sites of Memory; idem, Witnesses to War.

[120] Winter, Sites of Memory; Koselleck, Zur politischen Ikonologie, and Goebel, “Re-membered and re-mobilzed”.